Waste-to-Energy ECIP (Energy Conservation Investment Program) … · 2011. 5. 13. · Executive Summary The Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) is a subset of the Military

ERD

C/CE

RL

TR-0

6-7

Waste-to-Energy ECIP (Energy Conservation Investment Program) Project Volume I: An Analysis of Hydrogen Infrastructure Fuel Cell Technology

Gonzalo Perez, Robert Neathammer, Franklin H. Holcomb, Roch A. Ducey, Byung J. Kim, and Fred Louis

April 2006

Con

stru

ctio

n E

ngi

nee

rin

g R

esea

rch

Lab

orat

ory

Sludge

Storage Tank

Heat Exchanger

Sludge Digestion

Tank

AnaerobicDigestion

Gas Holder ADG

AC Power

Hydrogen Hydrogen Storage

Hydrogen Dispenser

Hot Water

Fuel Cell Scrubber

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

ERDC/CERL TR-06-7 April 2006

Waste-to-Energy ECIP (Energy Conservation Investment Program) Project Volume I: An Analysis of Hydrogen Infrastructure Fuel Cell Technology

Franklin H. Holcomb, Roch A. Ducey, and Byung J. Kim

Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center 2902 Newmark Dr. Champaign, IL 61824

Gonzalo Perez and Robert Neathammer

The PERTAN Group 44 Main Street, Suite 502 Champaign, Illinois 61820-3636

Fred Louis

Fort Stewart, GA 31314

Draft Report

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Prepared for U.S. Army Office of Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management (ACSIM) Facilities and Housing Directorate Arlington, VA 22202

Under Work Unit HHK6H4

ERDC/CERL TR-06-7 ii

Abstract: Volume I of this work represents a preliminary analysis of the economics from an anaerobic sludge digester Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) at a military installation integrated with a fuel cell with hydrogen production capabilities. The waste-to-energy, hydrogen production/infrastructure development, fuel cell system (WTE-H2-FC) was submitted for FY06 Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) funding based on the estimated Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) range of 1.5 – 2, and an estimated Simple Payback Period of 8+ years. Volume II of this project will include a more detailed analysis that will validate the assumptions made in Volume I, and produce a planning and design document to be used to implement the WTE-H2-FC system. This analysis considered Army installations, future analyses of the application of this technology may include Air Force and Navy bases.

DISCLAIMER: The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products. All product names and trademarks cited are the property of their respective owners. The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents. DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED. DO NOT RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINATOR.

ERDC/CERL TR-06-7 iii

Executive Summary

The Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) is a subset of the Military Construction (MILCON) program specifically designed for energy saving projects for facilities. To fully utilize the ECIP program, the Con-struction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) wished to investigate the feasibility of integrating waste-to-energy technology, hydrogen pro-duction/infrastructure development, and fuel cell technology (WTE-H2-FC), into a project that could be implemented under the Energy Conserva-tion Investment Program (ECIP). This study analyzes the feasibility of in-tegrating the WTE-H2-FC technology into the ECIP Program.

The different components of the WTE-H2-FC technology have been suc-cessfully applied before in the United States and other countries to tap into a renewable source of energy focusing on anaerobic sludge digesters at wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Six U.S. Army installations were considered as possible candidates to take advantage of this technology. Fort Stewart was selected as the most appropriate installation due to the size of its anaerobic digester and the support of its leadership. The feasibil-ity analysis of two alternative designs showed that the WWTP at Fort Stewart produces enough methane to benefit from the implementation of this technology. Furthermore, the economic analysis showed that Fort Stewart could save $2.75M over 20 years by implementing the WTE-H2-FC. Finally, the WTE-H2-FC technology will permit Fort Stewart to use a renewable energy source to annually save the Army 1,150,000 kWh of elec-tricity, 1,180,800 kWh of natural gas, and 291,600 kWh of hydrogen.

ERDC/CERL TR-06-7 iv

Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. iii

Figures and Tables..................................................................................................................................v Figures v Tables v

Preface....................................................................................................................................................vi

Unit Conversion Factors.......................................................................................................................vii

1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 1 Objective ................................................................................................................................... 1 Approach................................................................................................................................... 1 Mode of Technology Transfer................................................................................................... 2

2 Description of Technology............................................................................................................. 3 Step 1. Identification of Potential Army Installations ............................................................. 3 Step 2. Development of a WTE-H2-FC Conceptual Design ..................................................... 3

Step 3. Identification of the Army installation where the WTE-H2-FC project has the greatest potential for success 7

Feasibility Analysis 7 Economic Analysis 8 Electric Savings 9 Hot Water Savings 9 Hydrogen Savings 10 Construction Cost: 10 Recurring Maintenance Cost 11 Non-Annual Recurring Maintenance 11 Results of the Economic Analysis 11

3 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................12

4 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................13

References............................................................................................................................................15

Appendix A: Estimated Model of ADG as a Function of MGD........................................................16

Appendix B: DD 1391 Suggested Language ...................................................................................19

Appendix C: NIST BLCC 5.3-05: ECIP Report...................................................................................22

Report Documentation Page..............................................................................................................28

ERDC/CERL TR-06-7 v

Figures and Tables

Figures

1 Components of a fuel cell using anaerobic digester gas ................................................ 4

2 LOGAN Energy's HyCoGen design courtesy of LOGAN Energy ........................................ 6

3 Off-the-shelf WTE-H2-FC ....................................................................................................... 6

Tables

1 Installation selection decision table.................................................................................. 4

C1 Survey of 60WTP in Wisconsin .........................................................................................16

C2 Regression analysis results ..............................................................................................18

ERDC/CERL TR-06-7 vi

Preface

This study was conducted for the U.S. Army Office of Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management (ACSIM), Facilities and Housing Direc-torate under project, “CERL Development of Hydrogen Economy Project”; Work Unit No. HHK6H4. The technical monitor was Henry Gignilliat, ACSIM-FDF-U.

The work was performed by the Energy Branch (CF-E), of the Facilities Division (CF), Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL). The CERL Principal Investigator was Franklin H. Holcomb. Part of this work was done by the PERTAN Group, Champaign, IL, under Contract Number W9132T-05-P-0113. Appreciation is owed to Fred Lewis, Fort Stewart, GA, for technical and logistical assistance in this project. Dr. Tho-mas Hartranft is Chief, CEERD-CF-E, and L. Michael Golish is Chief, CEERD-CF. The associated Technical Director was Dr. Paul A. Howdy-shell, CEERD-CVT. The Acting Director of CERL is Dr. Ilker R. Adiguzel.

CERL is an element of the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Commander and Ex-ecutive Director of ERDC is COL James R. Rowan, and the Director of ERDC is Dr. James R. Houston.

ERDC/CERL TR-06-7 vii

Unit Conversion Factors

Multiply By To Obtain

British thermal units (International Table) 1,055.056 joules

cubic feet 0.02831685 cubic meters

cubic inches 1.6387064 E-05 cubic meters

cubic yards 0.7645549 cubic meters

degrees (angle) 0.01745329 radians

degrees Fahrenheit (F-32)/1.8 degrees Celsius

feet 0.3048 meters

gallons (U.S. liquid) 3.785412 E-03 cubic meters

inches 0.0254 meters

inch-pounds (force) 0.1129848 Newton meters

ERDC/CERL TR-06-7 1

1 Introduction

Background

The Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) is a subset of the Military Construction (MILCON) program specifically designed for energy saving projects for facilities. ECIP is used to fund new energy efficient sys-tems or to improve the energy efficiency of existing facilities. ECIP projects also assist Army installations in modernizing infrastructure, reducing elec-tric utility demand, and improving energy flexibility. This program gives higher priority to projects that support renewable energy flexibility.

To fully utilize the ECIP program, the Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) wished to investigate the feasibility of integrating waste-to-energy technology, hydrogen production/infrastructure devel-opment, and fuel cell technology (WTE-H2-FC), into a project that could be implemented under ECIP. The result of the feasibility study includes the drafting of a full project proposal following the format and guidance of the military construction 1391 project proposal process.

Objective

The objective of this work was to analyze and document the feasibility of developing the WTE-H2-FC technology at an anaerobic sludge digester at an installation wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), using the ECIP pro-gram.

Approach

The feasibility analysis and its corresponding 1391 documentation were completed in three steps:

1. Identification of Army installations that can benefit from the WTE-H2-FC technology.

2. Development of a preliminary conceptual design encompassing WTE-H2-FC.

3. Identification of the Army installation where the WTE-H2-FC project has the greatest potential for success.

ERDC/CERL TR-06-7 2

Mode of Technology Transfer

This report will be made accessible through the World Wide Web (WWW) through URLs:

http://www.cecer.army.mil

http://www.dodfuelcell.com

http://www.cecer.army.mil/

http://www.dodfuelcell.com/

ERDC/CERL TR-06-7 3

2 Description of Technology

Step 1. Identification of Potential Army Installations

PERTAN Group personnel met with CERL researchers, who provided a list of Army installations with WWTPs and their capacities. Six installations were selected from the list to gather further information on their suitabil-ity to house and profit from WTE-H2-FC technology. Factors considered for selecting the candidate installation were: Plant Ownership, Anaerobic Digester Capacity, Current Flow, and Leadership Support (Table 1).

The PERTAN Group also reviewed relevant papers and publications to es-timate the amount of energy available in a wastewater treatment plant. The review provided the following conversion factors:

• Typically, Anaerobic Digester Gas (ADG) is composed of 60 to 65 per-cent methane and has a lower heating value (LHV) of 550 to 650 BTU per Cubic Foot (CF). This analysis assumes a heating value of 600 BTU/CF (Vik 2003).

• The amount of Anaerobic Digester Gas (ADG) produced per day is a function of the Millions of Gallons of water treated per Day (MGD), the amount of organics contained, and the time the sludge stays in the di-gester. A regression analysis on the results of a survey of 60 Water Treatment Plants (WTP) with anaerobic digester in Wisconsin shows that the amount of ADG, in Cubic Feet per Day (CF/Day), produced can be modeled as follows:

ADG (CF/Day) = 12,321 x MGD – 3,700 Eq 1

Appendix A describes this model more completely.

Step 2. Development of a WTE-H2-FC Conceptual Design

The recovery of anaerobic digester gas to produce electricity is becoming common practice in large WWTPs in the United States and in other coun-tries. Most of those plants generate the electricity using either an engine-generator set or a fuel cell. The most popular prime movers in the engine-generator configuration are internal-combustion engines and micro tur-bines. One fuel cell used in these applications is the United Technologies Corporation (UTC) PC25 200 kW Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell (PAFC) (Ad-olph and Saure 2002). Figure 1 shows a fuel cell using anaerobic digester gas to produce electricity.

ERDC/CERL TR-06-7 4

Table 1. Installation selection decision table.

Army Installation Sewer Plant Ownership

WWTP Capacity POC

Leaders Support

Fort Stewart, GA Army/City Designed for 9 Mg/day Permit for 7.5 Mg/day Current flow > 5 Mg/day

Fred Louis 912.767.5034 Denis Kelly 912.767.5027

Yes

Fort Campbell, KY Privatized Dwayne Smith 270.798.5652

Fort Carson, CO Army Aerobic Process; No methane produced

Don Fuhrman 719.526.3415 Dan Golden 719.491.8596

Yes

Fort Lewis, WA In the process of privatization. BRAC postponed it. Bids may go out December 2006

Designed for 7 Mg/day Current flow>3.5 Mg/day

Bernadette Rose 253.966.1792 Steve Glover 253.966.1788

Yes

Fort Hood, TX No water treat-ment plant

Fort Dix, NJ In the process of privatizing the plant. Bidding is finished and the winner will be an-nounced soon.

Radames Cales 609.562.6687 Steve Whitmore 609.562.4954

No, It will interfere with privati-zation proc-ess

ADG

Anaerobic Digester

METHANE REFORMER

H2

CELL STACK

AC

HEAT

SCR

UB

BER

FUEL CELL

Power Conditioner

DC

Figure 1. Components of a fuel cell using anaerobic digester gas.

ERDC/CERL TR-06-7 5

PERTAN personnel reviewed several technical reports describing the ap-plication of the PC25 fuel cell in water treatment plants. That review pro-vided the following design parameters:

• The PC25 fuel cell consumes natural gas and produces both electricity and hot water. The PC25 power plant rating is 200 kW of electricity and 205 kW of hot water. The efficiency of the electricity generation ef-fect (Electric Efficiency) is usually around 45 percent of the energy con-tent of the natural gas consumed. The efficiency of the heat generation effect (Thermal Efficiency) is usually around 50 percent.

• The anaerobic digester gas contains CO2, moisture, and other undesir-able particles that have to be removed before it can be used in the fuel cell. This scrubbing operation consumes energy and has the effect of reducing both the electric efficiency and the heating efficiency of the fuel cell. For this analysis, the electric efficiency of the fuel cell is con-sidered to be 37 percent and the heating efficiency 40 percent.

• The three main components of a PC25 fuel cell are: gas reformer, cell stack, and power conditioner. The gas reformer converts the methane into hydrogen. The cell stack converts the hydrogen into Direct Current (DC) and hot water. The electric power conditioner converts the DC into usable Alternating Current (AC). The three main components of the commercially available PC25 are designed to work as a single power plant that consumes all the hydrogen it produces without any in-termediate storage between the reformer and the stacks.

• To be able to use the hydrogen outside the fuel cell for a purpose other than producing electricity in the stacks requires some modifications to the fuel cell. First, the hydrogen line between the reformer and the stacks must be tapped properly and a regulating valve mechanism and control added to divert the hydrogen away from the stacks. Second, the controls of the fuel cell have to be reprogrammed so that the reformer produces more hydrogen than the amount used in the stack. Third, an external hydrogen storage system must be added to the installation and connected to the tapped hydrogen line. Finally, both controls (the fuel cell and the hydrogen storage controls) have to be integrated so that both major components work together as a system.

At the time of this analysis, PERTAN Group personnel were unable to find a commercially available system as the one described above. However, LOGAN Energy provided PERTAN with an existing conceptual design for such a system named HyCoGen (Logan Energy 2005). Although the Hy-CoGen conceptual design has not yet been built, its major components (the fuel cell and the hydrogen storage) are both commercially available.

ERDC/CERL TR-06-7 6

Another way to provide all the functionalities required by the WTE-H2-FC concept without re-engineering the existing PC25 is to add an off-the-shelf hydrogen refueling unit together with an off-the-shelf natural gas reformer (Figure 3). The main advantage of this alternative is that the PC25 does not have to be re-engineered. The main disadvantage is that it contains two reformers instead of only one. However, the redundancy of the second reformer increases the reliability of the refueling station since it can work even when the fuel cell is not operating.

Design of a Hydrogen Refueling Facility By Means of Integration With a

Commercially Available Fuel Cell Power Plant

+_

Anode/Reformate Supply PipingFuel Input

ReformerCell Stack

Fuel Cell Generator

DC Conductors

Inverter

H2 Skid Control Valve

AC Out

Anode Exhaust

H2 Skid Supply Gas

H2 Particulate Filter

Press Swing Abs (PSA)

CompressorsH2

Storage

H2

H2 Refueling Facility

Figure 2. LOGAN Energy's HyCoGen design courtesy of LOGAN Energy.

DG Anaerobic Digester

SC

RU

BBE

R

PureCell 200

CH4 CH4

CH4

H2 Tank H2

Quantum-Tecstar's B35 H2 Gen HGM

H2

Figure 3. Off-the-shelf WTE-H2-FC.

ERDC/CERL TR-06-7 7

Step 3. Identification of the Army installation where the WTE-H2-FC project has the greatest potential for success

Fort Stewart was selected from the six candidate installations as the pref-erable location for three reasons:

1. It was the installation with the largest through flow (more than 5 MGD).

2. The Energy Manager was highly supportive of the program. 3. The Army owns the land on which the plant is located and where the

FC will be located.

The PERTAN Group personnel visited the plant to check the feasibility of the project and met with the plant operator and the Energy Manager of the installation. In addition, PERTAN personnel obtained economic data to be used in the 1391 documentation process.

Feasibility Analysis

The purpose of this analysis is to determine if the Fort Stewart WWTP produces enough digester gas to support the use of the PC25 fuel cell. In addition, this analysis will determine the expected outputs derived from the use of the plant. The results from this analysis will be used to support the assumption necessary to carry the Economic Analysis required by the ECIP program.

Currently, the WWTP only uses a portion of the anaerobic digester gas to warm up the sludge in the digester. The rest of the gas was burned in an open flame. At the time of the visit, the plant did not have records of the amount of ADG produced in the digester. To determine if the plant, with its current flow of 5 MGD, could generate enough digester gas to support the operation of a PC25 200 kW plant, The PERTAN Group estimated the amount of gas and its energy content as follows:

• CF/Day of anaerobic gas: Substituting the 5 million gallons of daily flow at Fort Stewart for MGD in Eq. 1, provides the daily anaerobic gas production in CF/Day

ADG = 12,321 x MGD – 3,700 = 12,321 x 5 – 3,700 = 57,905 CF/Day

• Energy content in BTU/day: Since 1 CF of ADG contains 600 BTU of energy, the energy content of the gas is:

Energy Content = 600 BTU/CF x 57,905 CF/Day = 34,743,000 BTU/Day

ERDC/CERL TR-06-7 8

• Power Capacity of the treatment plant in BTU/hour: 1 BTU/Day = 1/24 BTU/Hour

Power Capacity = 34,743,000 BTU/Day x 1/24 Day/Hour = 1,447,625 BTU/Hour

• Power Capacity of the treatment plant in Watts: 1 BTU/Hour = 0.2929 W

Plant Capacity = 1,447,625 BTU/Hour x 0.2929 W/(BTU/Hour) = 424,009 W

• Power Capacity of the treatment plant in kW: 1,000 W = 1 kW Plant Capacity = 424,009 W x 1/1,000 (kW/W) = 424 kW

• Electric power generating capacity of the ADG using a PC25: As it was established earlier in this analysis, the PC25 has an electric effi-ciency of 37 percent when used to generate electricity using ADG.

Electric Power Generation Capacity = 424 kW x 37% = 157 kW

In other words, the amount of ADG generated at the WWTP contains enough energy to sustain the PC25 generating electricity at least at 75 per-cent capacity, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Moreover, since the installa-tion outlined above can store some amounts of ADG and/or of H2, the PC25 could also work at 100 percent capacity during 75 percent of the time. This also means that the amount of ADG produced contains enough energy to sustain the PC25 power plant working at full capacity (200 kW) 18 hours a day 7 days a week.

From those results, and after considering the actual rate schedule of Geor-gia Power, the best schedule of operations is considered to be 16 hours of electric and hot water production at 200 kW and 205 kW respectively, and 2 hours of only hydrogen production.

Economic Analysis

The ECIP guidance (AEP 2006) requires that a Life Cycle Cost (LCC) Analysis be included with the DD 1391 project documentation submittal. (Appendix B includes suggested language.) Moreover, the guidance strongly suggests using the National Institute of Standards and Technolo-gies (NIST) Building Life Cycle Cost (BLCC) Computer Program to per-form the analysis (cf. Appendix C). That analysis compares the benefits derived from the use of the WTE-H2-FC with the different costs incurred during its procurement, installation, and operation. The three benefits of operating the proposed WTE-H2-FC are the generation of electricity, hot water, and hydrogen.

To estimate the benefits of the WTE-H2-FC project to Fort Stewart, this analysis assumes that the PC25 works 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, gen-

ERDC/CERL TR-06-7 9

erating electricity and hot water at full capacity. For the other 2 hours a day, 7 days a week, of remaining capacity, the analysis assumes that the PC25 is generating mostly hydrogen with the rest of the plant generating just enough electricity and hot water to keep the reformer operational.

Electric Savings

Different energy savings are entered differently into BLCC for each energy type. The electricity savings are entered by estimating the annual energy in kWh/year and the cost of the kWh to the installation in $/kWh. The hot water savings and the hydrogen savings are each entered as an annual sav-ings in $/year.

The annual electricity generated by the plant in kWh is estimated thus:

Annual Electricity = 200 kW x 16 hrs/day x 360 days/year = 1,150,000 kWh

The cost of electricity to the installation 2 years from now was estimated at $0.10/kWh. That estimate reflects the current upward trend in the cost of electricity nationwide.

Hot Water Savings

The savings from hot water are estimated by first estimating the amount of heat generated, second, estimating the amount of natural gas required to generate that amount of heat, and then estimating the cost of the natural gas to the installation.

• Amount of heat generated as hot water in 1 year of operation: When the PC25 produces 200 kW of electricity, it also produces 205 kW of hot water. Assuming 16 hours a day 7 days a week of operation, the amount of heat in kWh is:

Heat Generated Annually = 205 kW x 16 hours/day x 360 days/year = 1,180,800 kWh

• Amount of natural gas required to produce that amount of hot water in kWh: If the above hot water were going to be produced with a natu-ral gas domestic hot water heater with an Efficiency Factor (EF) of 0.6, the amount of gas in kWh would be:

Amount of Natural Gas = 1,180,800 kWh /0.6 = 1,968,000 kWh

• Cost of the natural gas to produce the above hot water: This analysis assumes that the cost of natural gas to the installation is $ 0.60 per Therm (1 Therm = 29.3 kWh):

Annual Cost of Natural Gas = 1,968,000 kWh x 1/29.3 Therm/kWh x $0.6/Therm

Annual cost of natural gas = $40,300

ERDC/CERL TR-06-7 10

However, not all the hot water produced by the PC25 may be useful to the installation. Moreover, the hot water coming from the PC25 may need a heat exchanger to be used as domestic hot water. To account for that even-tuality, this analysis assumes that only ¾ of the potential savings from hot water production will actually materialize. In other words, this analysis assumes that the annual saving from the production of hot water is $30,000/year.

Hydrogen Savings

Savings from generating hydrogen at the installation are estimated by first estimating the amount of hydrogen generated, and then by estimating the cost to the installation from buying that much hydrogen.

• Maximum amount of hydrogen generated in 1 year: As explained ear-lier, this analysis assumes that the plant is generating hydrogen 2 hours a day, 7 days a week at full capacity. The maximum capacity of the PC25 is 405 kW (200kW + 205kW). During those 2 hours 7 days a week, the plant is capable of generating:

Hydrogen Generated = 405kW x 2 h/day x 360 days/Year = 291,600 kWh/year

Since 1 kWh = 3,413 BTU, and since H2 contains 267.5 BTU per SCF, the maximum volume of H2 generated in 1 year is:

H2 Generated = 291,600 kWh/year x 3,413 BTU/kWh ÷ 267.5 BTU/SCF

H2 Generated = 3,720,489 SCF/year

• Cost of H2 to the installation in $/year: If the installation were to buy that amount of H2 and did not have any storage facility to buy in bulk, it would have to buy it in regular cylinders and have it delivered there. Under those circumstances, the cost per cylinder containing 200 SCF of H2 is $12.50. Then, the annual savings to the installation for produc-ing all that H2 would be:

H2 Savings/year = (3,720,489 SCF/year ÷ 200 SCF/Cylinder) x $12.50/Cylinder

Maximum H2 Savings = $232,531/year

However, for all those savings to materialize, the installation would have to be able to use all the H2 produced regularly. Since that may not always be the case, this analysis considers only $120,000/year of savings which is approximately half of the estimated maximum annual savings.

Construction Cost

The construction cost for the WTE-H2-FC was roughly estimated at $1,500,000. That figure was estimated in two ways. First, LOGAN Energy


estimated their cost to implement their HyCoGen concept described in Figure 2. Second, PERTAN estimated the cost of procuring the different components of the off-the-self alternative described in Figure 3. Both es-timates were fairly similar.

Recurring Maintenance Cost

The annual maintenance cost was estimated at $40,000/year.

Non-Annual Recurring Maintenance

This is the cost of replacing the stacks of the fuel cells every 10 years. This cost was estimated at $400,000 every 10 years.

Results of the Economic Analysis

The beneficial life of the project is estimated to be 20 years. The economic analysis shows that the benefits to Fort Stewart from using WTE-H2-FC technology for those 20 years are:

• First year savings of: $207,678 • Simple payback period of less that 8 Years: 7.6 Years • Total discounted savings of: $2,747,498 • Saving-to-investment ratio (SIR) of: 1.74 • Adjusted Internal Rate of Return (AIRR) of: 5.54 percent.


3 Conclusions

The different components of the WTE-H2-FC technology have been suc-cessfully applied before in the United States and other countries to tap into a renewable source of energy. This study concluded that, of the six U.S. Army installations considered as candidates, Fort Stewart was the most appropriate installation for application of this technology.

A review of the anaerobic sludge digesters at the troop installation WWTPs showed that the size of the Fort Stewart anaerobic sludge digester was ap-propriate for a WTE-H2-FC technology application. A feasibility analysis of two alternative designs showed that the WTTP at Fort Stewart produces enough methane to benefit from the implementation of this technology. Furthermore, an economic analysis showed that Fort Stewart could save $2.75M over 20 years by implementing the WTE-H2-FC. Finally, the WTE-H2-FC technology will permit Fort Stewart to use a renewable energy source to save the Army annually 1,150,000 kWh of electricity, 1,180,800 kWh of natural gas, and 291,600 kWh of hydrogen. These factors, along with the expressed support of Fort Stewart’s leadership combined to make this installation the candidate of choice.

This analysis considered Army installations, future analyses of the applica-tion of this technology may include Air Force and Navy bases.


4 Recommendations

This study recommends that the feasibility analyses presented in this re-port be further investigated in a detailed planning and design effort before Fort Stewart commits to this initiative. Specific issues which should be addressed and refined in the planning and design phase include the fol-lowing:

1. Confirmation of estimated parameters. a. Amount of anaerobic digester gas (ADG) available.

Chapter 2 (page 4) estimated that the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) at Fort Stewart produced approximately 58,000 CF/Day of ADG, based on literature data from 60 Water Treatment Plants (WTPs) in Wisconsin. It would be helpful to validate this estimate by obtaining a sample measurement of the ADG produced at Fort Stewart.

b. Methane content of ADG. Chapter 2 (page 4) estimated that the methane content of the ADG produced at the WWTP at Fort Stewart yields approximately 600 BTU/CF, again based on literature data from 60 WTPs in Wiscon-sin. It would be helpful to analyze an actual sample of the ADG produced at Fort Stewart to verify the methane content and com-pare it to the estimate.

c. Amount of hydrogen that could be produced. Chapter 2 (page 11) estimated that the amount of hydrogen that could be produced by the fuel cell operating 2 hrs/day, 360 days/year was equal to ~ 3.7M SCF/year. It would be helpful to ob-tain some measured data from the actual useable hydrogen pro-duced from a fuel cell that would validate this estimate.

d. Amount of Useable Hot Water (Cogeneration) Available. Chapter 2 (pp. 10-11) estimated that a certain amount of heat in the form of hot water could be used for cogeneration purposes from the WTE-H2-FC system in the WWTP. This assumes that heat from an existing boiler in the WWTP can be displaced at a certain rate. It would be helpful to verify that: (1) there is indeed an operational boiler at the WWTP at Fort Stewart, (2) verify the amount of fuel the boiler uses from boiler logs or other means.


4. Availability of Equipment / Alternatives. The type of system (Waste to Energy, hydrogen production fuel cell system [WTE-H2-FC]) described in this report is not commercially available at this time. However, components of this system are commercially available and it is envisioned that with the proper integration and engineering the components could be combined with the necessary controls to produce the WTE-H2-FC system in question. There are many questions that need to be addressed with regards to the cost, maintenance required, and lifetime of the proposed system, among others. Also, the feasibility of alternative systems that could perform a similar function as the WTE-H2-FC should be explored.

5. Siting Requirements for the WTE-H2-FC System. Specific site requirements for the proposed WTE-H2-FC system need to be ad-dressed in the planning and design phase. These site requirements in-clude but are not limited to: adequate space at the site for installing and maintaining the system, a nearby source of potable water for the fuel cell, a nearby source for the heat recovery integration and piping to use the waste heat from the system in the WWTP, etc.

6. Economics of Project. Many assumptions throughout the report have been made with regards to the economics of the WTE-H2-FC sys-tem. Given fairly accurate estimates of the amount and methane con-tent of the ADG available from the Fort Stewart WWTP, the economics from the electric and thermal output of the fuel cell part of the system can be established to an acceptable degree of uncertainty, as many demonstrations of this type have been completed previously. However, the most dubious part of the economics of the WTE-H2-FC system de-scribed in this report is associated with the hydrogen portion of the project. At Fort Stewart there is currently no use for the hydrogen ex-pected to be produced from the WTE-H2-FC system. A large amount of the savings of the project (~$120K/year) is based on the production of hydrogen, and its value if it were purchased commercially as opposed to being produced on site. This raises questions as to whether the eco-nomics from the hydrogen produced can really be included in the pro-ject economics. However, the availability of the hydrogen from the proposed project at Fort Stewart may induce an actual end use or ap-plication for the hydrogen. These questions and potential tradeoffs need to be identified, quantified, and resolved during the planning and design phase of this project.


References

Adolph, Dirk, and Thomas Saure. 2002. Digester Gas-Fuel Cell Project. Germany: GEW Koln AG.

Army Energy Program (AEP). ECIP Guidance. Accessed 16 February 2006 through URL: http://hqda-energypolicy.pnl.gov/policies/ecip_guidance.asp

Greenhouse Gas Technology Center Southern Research Institute. 2004. Electric Power and Heat Generation Using UTC Fuel Cells’ PC25C Power Plant and Anaerobic Digester Gas. Research Triangle Park, NC.

Greenhouse Gas Technology Center Southern Research Institute. 2004. UTC Fuel Cells PC25C Power Plant Gas Processing Unit Performance for Anaerobic Digester Gas. Research Triangle Park, NC.

Installation Management Agency. Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) Guidance. Arlington, VA: Department of the Army (DA).

King County and CH2MHILL. 2005. King County Fuel Cell Demonstration Project. Washington, DC: CH2MHILL.

LOGAN Energy, HyCoGen System for DOD Applications. February 2005. White Paper. Roswell, GA.

Simmonet, A. Technical Options for Distributed Hydrogen Refueling Stations in a Market Driven Situation. Hydrogen Pathways Program. Davis, CA: University of California.

Spiegel, R. J. 2001. Full Cell Operation on Anaerobic Digester Gas. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

Thomas, C. E. 2002. Hydrogen and Fuel Cells: Pathway to a Sustainable Energy Future. Alexandria, VA: H2Gen Innovations.

Trocciola, J. C., and H. C. Healy. 1995. Demonstration of Fuel Cells To Recover Energy from an Anaerobic Digester Gas-Phase I. Conceptual Design, Preliminary Cost, and Evaluation Study. Research Triangle Park, NC: USEPA Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory.

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. 1984. Engineering and Design Domestic Wastewater Treatment Mobilization Construction. Washington, DC: DA.

United Technologies Company Power. Power. 2005. Product Data and Application Guide, Fuel Cell Power Plant. South Windsor, CT: UTC Power.

Vik, Thomas E. 2003. Anaerobic Digester Methane to Energy: A Statewide Assessment. Neehah, WI: McMahon Associates.

http://hqda-energypolicy.pnl.gov/policies/ecip_guidance.asp


Appendix A: Estimated Model of ADG as a Function of MGD

The amount of Anaerobic Digester Gas (ADG) produced per day is a func-tion of the Millions of Gallons of water treated per Day (MGD), the amount of organics contained, and the time the sludge stays in the di-gester. However, for most WWTPs, MGD is the most descriptive variable. Table C1 lists the results of a survey of 60 WTP conducted in Wisconsin and reported in “Anaerobic Digester Methane to Energy, A Statement As-sessment.” That data is used here to model the amount of ADG as a linear function of the MGD of through water. The fitted model is of the form Y=mX+b, where Y is the ADG/day, X is MGD and b is the intercept. The result of the regression is:

ADG (CF/Day) = 12,321 x MGD – 3,700

Table C2 lists the results of the linear regression. The high r2 value shows that the simple linear model is a good predictor of the amount of ADG produced by the MGD.

Table C1. Survey of 60WTP in Wisconsin.

Community Current Flow

MGD ADG Production

CF/Day ADG Production

CFM

1. Milwaukee-South-Shore-Plant* 100 1,260,500 875

2. Madison* 42 595,000 413.2

3. Appleton 14.9 386,200 268.2

4. Kenosha** 24 167,400 116.3

5. Racine** 29 148,000 102.8

6. LaCrosse 10 135,000 93.8

7. Neenah-Menasha* 9 130,000 90.3

8. Waukesha 9 129,600 90

9. Oshkosh 12 116,663 81

10. Sheboygan** 12 107,460 74.6

11. Beloit 6 101,250 70.3

12. Brookfield 8 79,770 55.8

13. Wausau** 5 75,000 52

14. Manitowoc 7.5 58,740 40.8

15. Sturgeon-Bay 1.5 57,600 40

16. HOVMSD* 5 52,122 36.2

17. Eau-Claire* 7 49,770 34.6

18. Beaver-Dam** 3 40,200 27.9



MGD ADG Production


CFM

19. South-Milwaukee 3.5 39,540 27

20. Monroe 2 33,100 23

21. Richland-Center 1 35,205 24.1

22. Stevens-Point 3.1 30,240 21

23. Rib-Mountain 2.4 29,625 21

24. Watertown 3.5 29,423 20.4

25. Superior 3.28 29,900 20.8

26. Menominee 1.6 29,800 20.7

27. Burlington* 3.25 27,900 19.4

28. West-Bend 5 27,368 19

29. Oconomowoc 2.1 22,940 15.9

30. Sun-Prairie* 2.3 22,600 15.7

31. Waupaca** 1.1 22,000 15.2

32. Chippewa-Falls** 2.35 21,200 14.7

33. Grafton 1.278 20,940 14.5

34. Walcomet** 4.24 19,700 13.7

35. Waupun 1.5 19,500 13.5

36. Heartland-Delafield* 1.85 18,900 13.1

37. Jefferson 1.5 17,600 12.2

38. Whitewater 1.4 16,939 11.8

39. Port-Washington** 1.5 17,000 11.8

40. Two-Rivers** 2 16,900 11.7

41. Rice-Lake* 1.5 16,400 11.3

42. Stoughton 1.5 15,300 10.6

43. Merrill 1.2 14,400 10

44. Platteville 1 13,500 9.4

45. Plymouth 1.6 13,000 9

46. Marinette 2.3 12,000 8.3

47. Jackson 0.9 11,200 7.8

48. Algoma 1 10,900 7.6

49. Portage 1.5 9,850 6.8

50. New-London 1.2 9,600 6.7

51. Hudson 1.3 9,200 6.4

52. Black-Creek 0.5 7,500 5.2

53. Rhinelander 1.1 6,568 4.6

54. Mukwanago 0.7 6,700 4.6

55. Berlin 0.7 5,200 3.6

56. Kiel 0.6 5,600 3.9

57. Nekoosa 0.35 2,868 2

58. Cashton 0.1 1,800 1.3



MGD ADG Production


CFM

59. Marathon 0.25 1,320 0.9

60. Augusta 0.23 1,250 0.9

Table C2. Regression analysis results.

Term Value

Independent Variable -3700

Slope 12321

Standard Error of Independent Variable 6433.65

Standard Error of Slope 415.428

Standard Error of Y Estimate 45568.43

r2 .938137

F Statistic 879.5627

Degrees of Freedom 58

Regression Sum of Squares 1.8264E+12

Residual Sum of Squares 1.20436E+11


Appendix B: DD 1391 Suggested Language

Suggested DD 1391 Language Supporting Waste-to-Energy-Hydrogen Infrastructure-Fuel-Cell Project

DATA FOR EACH BLOCK OF THE 1391 FOR INPUTING INTO 1391 PROCESSOR

COMPONENT: ARMY FY07 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA

DATE 16 SEP 2005

INSTALLATION AND LOCATION Fort Stewart, GA

PROJECT TITLE ELECTRICITY COST REDUCTION

PROGRAM ELEMENT

CATEGORY CODE 813 20

PROJECT NUMBER XXXXX

PROJECT COST 1,680

COST ESTIMATES

PRIMARY FACILITY 1,515

Prime Power Plant Kw 600 2.50 (1,500)

Wiring/Grounding (15)

SUPPORTING FACILITIES

None

ESTIMATED CONTRACT COST 1,515

CONTINGENCY PERCENT (5.00%) 75

SUBTOTAL 1,590

SUPERVISION, INSPECTION & OVERHEAD (5.7%) 86

TOTAL REQUEST 1,676

TOTAL REQUEST (ROUNDED) 1,680

ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTION COST (0)

Projection Description

ECIP project to reduce the cost for electrical power at Fort Stewart, GA by: (a) shaving peak load power demand, and by (b) replacing power con-sumption throughout the year. This project will provide one 200kW gen-erator fueled by Hydrogen gas recovered from the gas generated in the waste water treatment plant’s anaerobic digester. Surplus hydrogen gas will be used for infrastructure purposes as the needs arise.

REQ: 200 ADQT: NONE SUBSTD: NONE


Project Justification

This project is required to reduce the installation operating expenses re-lated to the utilities (“J” Account) and to begin the use of a hydrogen gas based infrastructure.

A refurbished UTC Fuel Cells PureCell 200 kW PAFC and the balance of power generation plant needed to produce electricity from the by product gases of the wastewater plant at Fort Stewart will be installed. Work in-cludes Hydrogen fueled fuel cells, with hydrogen purification system, and hydrogen storage and dispensing skid. This system will also begin the de-velopment of a hydrogen infrastructure to support emerging hydrogen powered fleets. An estimated savings of 10 cents/kWh for electricity was used in the economic analysis section of this 1391. Additional savings are estimated for thermal energy savings and for use of the excess hydrogen gas for infrastructure uses. The economic analysis shows a simple payback period of 7.6 years with a Savings to Investment Ratio of 1.74.

Additional Information

This project complies with current planning and design criteria. Cost sav-ings for this project will be verified by validating monthly energy bills. Ad-ditional cost savings will be documented as use of the surplus Hydrogen generated is used for future infrastructure needs such as Hydrogen fueled vehicles. Points of contact on this project are Henry Gignilliat, OACSIM, Army ECIP Program Manager, 703-428 -7003 & Fred Louis, Fort Stewart, GA, 912-767-5034. All required physical security measures and Antiterror-ism/Force Protection (AT/FP) measures will be implemented into this project’s design & construction. An Economic Analysis (EA) was prepared using the NIST BLCC (ECIP) program and utilized to help evaluate this project.

Impact If Not Provided

Fort Stewart will continue to expend funds unnecessarily for power costs that can be saved by using gas generated by the waster water treatment facility. Also, as future demand for Hydrogen powered infrastructure oc-curs, the gas supply will not be ready.

Estimated Construction Start: Jan 2008 Index: XXXX

Estimated Midpoint of Construction: Mar 2008 Index: XXXX

Estimated Construction Completion: Jun 2008 Index: XXXX


Quantitative Data

TYPE OF DESIGN: This facility does not include unusual construction features That require extra design effort.

UNIT OF MEASURE: KVA

A. TOTAL REQUIREMENT 200

B. EXISTING SUBSTANDARD 0

C. EXISTING ADEQUATE 0

D. FUNDED, NOT INVENTORY 0

E. ADEQUATE ASSETS 0

/////////////////////////////////////////////////AUTHORIZED FUNDED

H. DEFICIENCY (A-E) 200 200


Appendix C: NIST BLCC 5.3-05: ECIP Report

Economic Analysis of the Installation and Operation of a HyCoGen Energy Plant at Fort Stewart, GA for the Recovery of a Renewable Energy Source

This analysis is based on the assumptions that:

• The power plant will give 20 years of beneficial use. • Power generation will occur 16 hours/day for 360 days/year. • The analysis includes 10¢/kwh savings. • The analysis includes $40,000/year of maintenance cost. • The analysis includes thermal savings of $30,000/year. • The analysis includes $120,000/year of income from Hydrogen pro-

duced. • The expected life of cell stacks is 10 years and the replacement cost is

$400,000. • The analysis includes the cost of the hook up to the grid and the di-

gester gas line. • The analysis does not include the cost of extra gas lines or extra power

lines to hookup the fuel cell to the anaerobic digester or to the electric substation because the substation is relatively close to the water treat-ment plant.

The analysis was done using the Building Life Cycle Cost (BLCC). Below is the ECIP report.


NIST BLCC 5.3-05: ECIP Report

Consistent with Federal Life Cycle Cost Methodology and Procedures, 10 CFR, Part 436, Subpart A

The LCC calculations are based on the FEMP discount rates and energy price escalation rates updated on April 1, 2005.

Location: Georgia Discount Rate: 3%

Project Title: Power generation at Fort Stewart using hydrogen generated from waste water treatment gases

Analyst: Bob Neathammer

Base Date: September 1, 2005 Preparation Date: Thu Sep 15 13:02:48 CDT 2005

BOD: July 1, 2008 Economic Life: 22 years, 10 months

File Name: c:\program files\blcc5\projects\ analysisus-ing10centsand150000excessh2.xml

1. Investment Parameter Cost

Construction Cost $1,500,000

SIOH $75,000

Design Cost $0

Total Cost $1,575,000

Salvage Value of Existing Equipment $0

Public Utility Company $0

Total Investment $1,575,000

2. Energy and Water Savings (+) or Cost (-) Base Date Savings, unit costs, & discounted savings

Item Unit Cost Usage Savings

Annual Savings

Discount Factor

Discounted Savings

Electricity $29.30711 3,930.8 MBtu $115,200 12.966 $1,493,643

Energy Subtotal 3,930.8 MBtu $115,200 $1,493,643

Water Usage $141952916299.63950 0.0 Mgal $150,000 13.887 $2,083,106

Water Subtotal 0.0 Mgal $150,000 $2,083,106

Total $265,200 $3,576,749


3. Non-Energy Savings (+) or Cost (-)

Item Savings/Cost Occurrence

Discount Factor

Discounted Savings/Cost

Annually recurring -$40,000 Annual 13.887 -$555,495

Non-annually recurring

Replace fuel cell stacks at year 10 -$400,000 10 years 0 months

0.744 -$297,638

Non-annually recurring subtotal -$400,000 -$273,756

Total -$440,000 -$829,251

4. First year savings $207,678

5. Simple Payback Period (in years) 7.58 (Total investment/first-year savings)

6. Total discounted operational sav-ings

$2,747,498

7. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) 1.74 (Total discounted operational savings/total invest-ment)

8. Adjusted Internal Rate of Return (AIRR)

5.54% (1+d)*SIR(1/n)-1; d=discount rate, n=years in study period

NIST BLCC 5.3-05: Input Data Listing

Consistent with Federal Life Cycle Cost Methodology and Procedures, 10 CFR, Part 436, Subpart A

General Information Parameter Date

File Name: C:\Program Files\BLCC5\projects\ANALYSISUSING10CENTSAND150000EXCESSH2.XML

Date of Study: Thu Sep 15 13:04:12 CDT 2005

Analysis Type: MILCON Analysis, ECIP Project

Project Name: Power generation at fort Stewart using hydrogen generated from waste water treatment gases

Project Location: Georgia

Analyst: Bob Neathammer

Comment: This analysis uses a flat $0.10 per kWh for energy savings and a 10-year stack life and annual savings of $120,000 for use of excess h2 gas produced

Base Date: September 1, 2005

Beneficial Occupancy Date: July 1, 2008

Study Period: 22 years 10 months (September 1, 2005 through June 30, 2028)

Discount Rate: 3%

Discounting Convention: Mid-Year

Discount and Escalation Rates are REAL (exclusive of general inflation)


Savings from Alternative: HYDROGEN FROM WASTE WATER TREATMENT TO POWER A FUEL CELL

Energy Savings/Cost: Electricity Parameter Data

Annual Savings 1,152,000.0 kWh

Price per Unit: $0.10000

Demand Charge: $0

Utility Rebate: $0

Location: U.S. Average

Rate Schedule: Residential

State: Georgia

Usage Indices From Date Duration Usage Index

July 1, 2008 Remaining 100%

Escalation Rates From Date Duration Escalation

April 1, 2005 1 year 0 months -2.25%







April 1, 2012 1 year 0 months 0.32%



April 1, 2015 1 year 0 months 0%













From Date Duration Escalation









April 1, 2035 Remaining 0.03%

Water Savings/Cost: THERMAL WATER SAVINGS Annual Usage Annual Disposal

Units/Year Price/Unit Units/Year Price/Unit

@Summer Rates 1.0 L $7500.00 0.0 L $0.00

@Winter Rates 1.0 L $22500.00 0.0 L $0.00

Escalation Rates - Usage From Date Duration Usage Cost Escalation

September 1, 2005 Remaining 0%

Escalation Rates - Disposal From Date Duration Disposal Cost Escalation


Usage Indices - Usage From Date Duration Index


Usage Indices - Disposal From Date Duration Index


Water Savings/Cost: EXCESS H2 PRODUCED SAVINGS Annual Usage Annual Disposal

Units/Year Price/Unit Units/Year Price/Unit

@Summer Rates 1.0 L $30000.00 0.0 L $0.00

@Winter Rates 1.0 L $90000.00 0.0 L $0.00


Escalation Rates - Usage From Date Duration Usage Cost Escalation


Escalation Rates - Disposal From Date Duration Disposal Cost Escalation


Usage Indices - Usage From Date Duration Index


Usage Indices - Disposal From Date Duration Index


Capital Component Savings/Costs

Additional Investment Cost Parameter Cost

Construction Cost: $1,500,000

SIOH: $75,000

Design Cost: $0

Total Cost: $1,575,000

Salvage Value of Existing Equipment: $0

Public Utility Company Rebate: $0

Total Investment: $1,575,000

Annually Recurring Savings/Cost: ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COST Amount Saved: -$40,000

Annual Rate of Increase: 0%

Usage Indices From Date Duration Factor


Non-Annually Recurring Savings/Costs: REPLACE FUEL CELL STACKS AT YEAR 10 Years/Months: 10 years 0 months

Amount Saved: -$400,000

Annual Rate of Increase: 0%

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

13-04-2006 2. REPORT TYPE

Final 3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Waste-to-Energy ECIP (Energy Conservation Investment Program) Project Volume I: An Analysis of Hydrogen Infrastructure Fuel Cell Technology

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) Gonzalo Perez, Robert Neathammer, Franklin H. Holcomb, Roch A. Ducey, Byung J. Kim, and Fred Louis

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER HHK6H4

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) PO Box 9005, IL 61826-9005

ERDC/CERL TR-06-7

9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) ODDR&E Office of the Director, Defense, Research, and

Engineering (ODDR&E) Rosslyn, VA 22209

Operations & Maintenance Division Fort Stewart, GA 31314-4928

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT Volume I of this work represents a preliminary analysis of the economics from an anaerobic sludge digester Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) at a military installation integrated with a fuel cell with hydrogen production capabilities. The waste-to-energy, hydrogen production/infrastructure development, fuel cell system (WTE-H2-FC) was submitted for FY06 Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) funding based on the estimated Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) range of 1.5 – 2, and an estimated Simple Payback Period of 8+ years. Volume II of this project will include a more detailed analysis that will validate the assumptions made in Volume I, and produce a planning and design document to be used to implement the WTE-H2-FC system. This analysis considered Army installations, future analyses of the application of this technology may include Air Force and Navy bases.

15. SUBJECT TERMS fuel cells WTE-H2-FC energy conservation wastewater treatment plants Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP)

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

18. NUMBER OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE Unclassified

40

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239.1

Documents

Waste-to-Energy ECIP (Energy Conservation Investment Program) … · 2011. 5. 13. · Executive Summary The Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) is a subset of the Military